The context :

In my own quest to find a good CPU to really play Arma3, on a budget I had failed with the Pentium G4500 (1st episode on CanardPC Forums ... in French). I thought I had found a good candidate to be what I am calling the "Minimum Recommendable" to play Arma3. Ultimately, it has gone wrong due to the processor two cores limitations.In game, the Pentium G4500 2 cores were constantly loaded up to 100% and the phenomenon of "bottleneck" deprives us of any hope of being able to play up to the minimum level -in my approach 20FPS- on Tanoa.

You're going to point out to me, rightly, that no one is playing with such a weak set-up, but I've noticed several times in forums that players on a tight budget or absent-minded try to do it ... and they had problems.

From my point of view, it’s clear, it’s no longer possible to play Arma3 with a Core 2Duo E6600 and a GeForce 9800 GT. This "Minimum" config for Arma3 will allow you to display the game and to work on the editor and even to have a glimpse of what playing means on Stratis but it doesn't allow you to get a fair gaming experience on all Arma3 official terrains.

The upcoming release of Ryzen led Intel to consider a far-reaching counter-attack against its finally threatened Empire, the release at the beginning of this year of 3 Pentiums with HT: Pentium G4560, Pentium G4600, Pentium G4620.

We will see in a near future what AMD will release in the upcoming R3 Ryzen lineup for players with a limited budget, but here and now, let see if we get an option to play at a lower cost with the cheapest of these Pentiums.

The test :

A- the hardware

1 ° Pentium G4560With 2 cores and 4 threads, it looks like an i3-killer in terms of price / performance ratio and, considering reviews, benchs and other tests, it seems to be an interesting candidate.

On the program as intended today*:- Settings,- Bench tests with Arma3Mark-Stratis and YAAB- Tests on SP missions "4 contre1" on Altis and "Anti-Syndicat" on Tanoa

* Settings:

The settings are those given by the game auto-detection:In General, the Quality settings are on "High", Note that the "water reflection" option provided by the Visual Update is activated and set to "-High-"The 100% CPU and mixed CPU / GPU options are set:- Overall visibility at 2200m.- Terrain in "High" and Shadows in "Very High".In Display, the VSYNC is deactivated.All settings in the AA & PP section are active.

* Bench tests with Arma3Mark-Stratis and YAAB:

Arma3Mark-Stratis: the average score of 10 tests on the Arma3Mark - Stratis bench is 60 FPS

YAAB or Yet Another Arma Benchmark: the result is 29/30 FPS.

* SP missions tests:

4 vs 1 - Altis: In this mission of the FIA groups are fighting motorized units from the AAF in Pyrgos.

In this mission, the game runs fairly regularly in the zone of 25/30 FPS which is quite playable.In a more qualitative and subjective way, playing in "High" makes it possible to appreciate the environment and to better distinguish the threats, besides the feeling in play is good, fluid, without loss of FPS in movement or during shots.

Anti-Syndikat - Tanoa: the second mission played is a transposition on Tanoa of the previous mission.In this mission, Gendarmerie, helped by groups from the FAT32 (Front d’ Auto-défense de Tanoa) is fighting the Syndikat gangs in Gorgetown.

In this mission, the game runs regularly around the 20 FPS level and remains fluid and constantly playable in the engagement and /or during player fast moves. I must admit nevertheless that Tanoa seems difficult grounds for this entry level configuration.

Partial conclusion

The platform used Pentium G4560 / MSI 250I-Pro / 8GB DDR4 Crucial 2400MHz / SSD 256GB Intel 600p is solid and stable.By combining it with a basic graphics card like the GTX 750Ti, performance with Arma3 is rather good in SP.In the mission on Tanoa, my hypothesis is that we are near the limits of what the processor can do but from a subjective point of view, the game with this configuration always remains fluid, playable.

After Apex release, even if we don't get an official requirements 'Splendid' update, I must recognize that the released "aggiornamento" is welcome. Even if no move has been made for minimum CPUs level and some inconsistencies persist it is a good new.

* Even if disabling the sexiest "Visual Update" parameters in order to gain some performances is possible, it's still NOT possible to play with a Core2 Duo E6600 or un Athlon II x2 250 based rig even if I must admit the game is running with such CPUs.* The "Intel Core i5-4460 / AMD FX 4300" part is the kind of inconsistency I am speaking of.The Intel Core i5-4460 is a rather good CPU, the kind "you must have" in order to play.The AMD FX 4300 is more or less on par with an i3 2120 for general purpose usage, it can be a rather good candidate for "playable minimum", but here Arma3 gaming wise, it's out of place.

Korneel van 't Land has informed us that Bohemia Interactive has announced to day, during the PC Gaming Show at E3 2016 that Arma 3 Apex is to be released on July 11th, a Sneak Preview access video is now available.

Prague, Czech Republic, June 13th 2016

Alongside a brand new trailer, which premiered during the PC Gaming Show at E3 2016, Bohemia Interactive today announced the release date for the much-anticipated Arma 3 Apex expansion. Launching worldwide on July 11th this year, Arma 3 Apex will bring players to the 100 km² South Pacific archipelago Tanoa, with a new arsenal of weapons and vehicles at their disposal, as well as additional armed forces, a co-op campaign, and more.

Calling all troops to the front lines, Bohemia Interactive also announced that, as of today (almost one month before release), everyone who pre-ordered Arma 3 Apex has Sneak Preview Access to all of the expansion’s content, except for the co-op campaign. To install the Apex Sneak Preview build, you simply need to right-click on Arma 3 in your Steam Library, go to 'Properties', visit the 'BETAS' tab, and use the drop-down menu to select and install the Apex Sneak Preview build. This build represents a work-in-progress version and is not yet fully representative of the final Arma 3 Apex release.

With its distinct geographical features and varied locations, Apex's South Pacific island archipelago of Tanoa introduces fresh opportunities for all types of combat operations. Making use of 13 new weapons (providing a mix of classic and near-future firearms), and 10 new vehicles (including new vehicle classes such as VTOL aircraft and LSVs), players can engage in authentic combat on a massive scale, where movement, shooting, and teamwork truly matter. The new 1-4 player co-op campaign sees players take on the role of NATO CTRG special operators, who are sent to Tanoa in order to prevent a humanitarian disaster, but quickly find themselves facing a far bigger threat than they bargained for.

Arma 3 Apex is now available for pre-order with a 20% discount for 23.99 EUR / 19.99 GBP / 27.99 USD (regular price: 29.99 EUR / 24.99 GBP / 34.99 USD) on Steam and the Bohemia Store. Those who are new to Arma 3, but want to enlist for the complete experience at the best price, can choose to pick up the Arma 3 Apex Edition for 59.99 EUR / 44.99 GBP / 69.99 USD.

For more information about the Apex expansion, please visit the official web page at www.arma3.com/apex – where you find a complete overview of its content and features – and take a look at the latest developer diary video. To keep track of all the latest news and updates, be sure to follow Arma 3 on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Steam.

At Arma3 launch, "Minimum" and "Recommended" configuration requirements have been released. As far as we know players playing with a rig at the "Minimum" requirements level are still having issues with Campaign on Altis and while playing MP.And it's so, despite the considerable progress done in terms of optimization since Alpha release in March 2013.Today, as specifications for computers supporting A3 ports to Linux and MacOS have been released and some changes have been made in "Minimum" requirements for Windows, it's time to have a look at Arma3 configuration requirements.

Here are my comments on hardware configurations for playing Arma3 and about the minimum to get in order to enjoy the game.

There has been a first change late 2014 about the "Recommended" OS config from “Windows 7/8” to "Windows 7/8 64-bit."With the release of ports on Linux and MacOS, two versions of the specifications have been published.The hardware specs for the Apple OS are very specific, we will leave them aside yet.Let's have a look at "Minimum" and "Recommended" configuration requirements for Linux :

Several elements in "Minimum" requirements are obviously going in the direction of increasing the level of minimum required specifications:- Using a 64bit OS- Using a quad core 2.4 GHz in the form of an Intel Core i5 2.4 GHz or better- Using 8GB RAM

For the graphics card, the specifications are a bit difficult to understand, the GTX 440 does not exist and the HD 7470 is a card with lower performances than cards previously suggested.These lower specifications regarding graphics cards are more difficult to understand as in the same time in the "Minimum" requirements for Windows, 2 GPUs were added :

Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 / AMD Radeon HD 7750

These cards were already displayed as the specification "Recommended" for GPU!Does it mean a Linux based rig must get more processing power but can afford less graphic computing? Weird.

Based on my own experience, on the tests I made myself and as well on reports made by players on various forums, I can say that even if a "Minimum" configuration based rig allowed Arma3 to "run", it does not allowed a satisfactory gaming experience in SP and MP as well.

My project is to outline what I call "Minimum Recommended" requirements for Windows, in order to allow players to enjoy Arma3 in SP and MP. It could be something like:

I read that kind of question again and again well before Arma3 Alpha release, and that kind of question is asked not only by people have extra low end configurations but also by people having high-end rigs.

It happens that I own a PC having more or less this configuration. It has been built to host my work in progress as a Map-Maker as well as a repository for backups. Based upon an Athlon II x2 250 / 4 Go de DDR3, a 500 Go HDD for the OS and a pair of 2 To HDD for data. Later a GTS 450 /1 Go DDR3 had been added so I could watch series while my main rig was dealing with Visitor3.

The release of the first episode of the ArmA 3 campaign : “Survive”; was the signal I needed to start making some tests on Arma3 with this rig. So I got a spare old Intel 80 Go SSD inside in order to host Steam files and there we go !

Some settings, some tests and results :

1° Playing Singleplayer : I have played in SP : Missions I created in the Editor, Showcases, “Survive” and Arma3Mark Stratis unofficial Benchmark.

I did many attempts with various tweaks and settings but I started the tests playing with the settings given by the Autodetect function.

Autodetect set all options on “Low” in the video quality section, set global “Visibility” at 1000 m and totally disabled the AA&PP section. On the GUI the FPS rate jumped to 50.

In game, I was getting a stable 30 FPS, and Arma3Mark was around 32/34 FPS.It was playable but without grass or clutters on the ground, trees looking like candyfloss, buildings blank textured; no other words for it : the game was ugly. However the superb lights effects were there helping me to bear the overall ugliness.

So, as I was finishing the tests, playing some mission out of Camp Maxwell, I couldn't stand it anymore. So I decided to change the settings in order to find a better balance between playability and visual quality and after some tweaking I made the choice to set all the “Quality“ parameters on “Standard”.All the following pictures and the benching results in the SP part were done with those settings.

ArmA3Mark : of course, with these settings the bench results were a bit lower, around 23/27 FPS. Starting at a low 17 FPS but with a nice finish at 23 FPS !

Showcase Infantry : good start and ending around 30 FPS. Slight slips under 20 FPS during the fight in Girna. In the same place, low quality for mid-range building textures but quite playable and enjoyable.

2° Playing Multi-Player : I have done many tests on various servers having a low ping and playing well built missions.

On a heavy populated server with a ping of 45 in “Low” with 900 m global visibility I have been getting 8/15FPS = it's ugly AND unplayable. Quite a shame, really.

On a un-populated server with a ping of 35 in “Standard” with 2000 m global visibility I have been getting 10/15FPS = again, quite unplayable with an image quality which appeared less good than in SP.

So we are getting at a quick conclusion : At the moment, it's not possible to play in MultiPlayer with such a config. But the weirdest thing is that I have been getting lower visual quality ingame and at the same time a very low GPU load (around 30% for the test on the 1st server and around 50% for the test on the 2nd one.)

Conclusions

Before I conclude this 1st tests row, I will say I can see the limits in them : the subjective side and some bias.- Limits : I'm not a specialist, just a dedicated Arma veteran player.- Subjective side : I have done a “choice” by throwing aside playable but ugly settings in order to play a visually better game at the price of some FPS drop in Single Player.- Bias : the main one being I had to connect 2 screens on the GPU in order to get hardware result while playing getting a large 2704x1050 total screen. But in fact I am getting a 100% CPU load on GUI only, as soon as I am in-game, the GPU load is falling! On the other side, I have tested the game with only the 1680x1050 gaming screen connected and it shows no difference FPS wise.

So to conclude, I can tell that Arma3 is quite playable and enjoyable in Single player in Missions and Campaign as well on a configuration nearing the “Minimum” official specs. But at the moment, I'll repeat myself but only to make it clear : this configuration does not allow playing in Multi-Player.From my point of view, the “Recommended” official specs configuration seems to be in fact the minimum configuration to play and enjoy MultiPlayer.

In the future, I will have a look at what can be done from my side to enhance performances, dealing with better RAM, better GPU ... so, to be continued !

Note1 : I am quite fond of ArmA3Mark, you can find it here.Note 2 : were used in these tests HWiNFO64, TechPowerUp GPU-Z, Drives Meter, Fraps.Note 3 : most of my interrogations about the minimum specs concern were raised while answering questions on JV.com French forums here. (Careful : French Language - Click at your own risks)Note 4 : I have used GamerCentral.de server as a test base too often, thanks guys !

Here at games.on.net, we're big fans of ArmA - so when we found Senior Developers Ivan Buchta and Jay Crowe wandering lost in our corridors, we immediately called them in for a chat. Read on for their thoughts on map size, mods, and what they think of DayZ, as well as revised minimum specs for ArmA III....GON: Many people felt that ArmA II was somewhat unoptimised and ran slowly on machines that should have been able to handle it. Do you feel that ArmA III will address these issues?

Ivan: Hopefully yes. Of course, we have added new rendering techniques into the engine, which makes it more demanding, but with the computing power an average gaming PC has these days, ArmA III should both look and run well.

Jay: In terms of the video options, too, we give a lot of power to the players, and - in that sense - invest some trust in them, also.

If they want to play with everything on very high – completely max it out – well, that's up to them. It’s a PC game. Naturally, it is up to us to optimise as much as we can; it’s not an excuse to do a half-assed job. Ultimately, though, it’s about giving players the choices. Our video settings provide the option to throttle things back to find a balance for how you want to play on your hardware.

GON: On that note, can you tell us a bit more about what sort of system spec you're aiming for with ArmA III, and whether or not our readers should begin pricing some system upgrades?

Jay: Sure, at E3 we're releasing a newly revised set of minimum hardware specifications, but I’d be happy to share them with you now.